Some time ago, great play was made by evolutionists on this Reflector as
to the superiority of evolution over Progressive Creation at predicting
transitionals. The case of the `predicted' evolution of the whale from the
mesonychids was cited:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Tue 20 Jun 1995 11:55 CT, Glenn.Morton@ORYX.COM wrote:
[...]
GM>PC fits the facts, but can not make any predictions of any kind. Go back to
>the mid70's and consider the situation in relation to the whale transition.
>Evolution predicted that there should be some type of transitional fossil with
>legs between the Mesonychids and the Whales. What could PC predict about this
>morphological gap? While evolutionists could not tell you precisely what you
>would find, they could tell you the broad outlines, i.e. a critter with both
>mesonychid and cetacean features which had four feet...
>
>What happened? The evolutionist prediction was fulfilled; they found
>ambulocetus. The PC position was not harmed because the theory of PC didn't
>predict that there would be no critter like ambulocetus only the advocates of
>PC predicted that. Thus, PC can accept any piece of finding at all and never
>be harmed, but it can not tell you what will be found in the future.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well now it appears that whales were *not* descended from mesonychids
after all! Here is a web reference in SCIENCE of 7 August 1998 which
mentions a meeting to discuss (amongst other things) "a proposed link
between whales and ungulates":
"MAMMALIAN EVOLUTION MEETING:
New Views of the Origins of Mammals
Dennis Normile
HAYAMA, JAPAN--Paleontologists and molecular biologists take
different approaches to questions of evolution and often come to different
conclusions. While attending the International Symposium on the Origin of
Mammalian Orders here from 21 to 25 July, 50 mammalian researchers
from both sides of the fence tried to find common ground on such topics as
when modern mammalian orders emerged and differentiated, and a
proposed link between whales and ungulates.
Volume 281, Number 5378 Issue of 7 Aug 1998, pp. 774 - 775
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/281/5378/774
I don't have full online subscription to SCIENCE,so I had to wait until the
hard copy arrived. Here are some excerpts, with my emphases:
"At the [International Symposium on the Origin of Mammalian Orders],
Hans Thewissen, a paleontologist at Northeastern Ohio Universities
College of Medicine in Rootstown and an expert on whale evolution,
described analyses of new specimens of early whales and whale ancestors
his team collected in Pakistan. The new specimens WEAKEN THE LINK
BETWEEN WHALES AND THE MESONYCHIANS, which was
primarily based on similarities in the teeth. But they support the idea that
whales are cousins of the ungulates, if not actual members of that group, he
reported. "I think there is no doubt that they are very closely related to
artiodactyls," says Thewissen.
ONE BLOW TO THE MESONYCHIAN LINK came from two specimens
of a 50- million-year-old whale, a member of Pakicetidae. Analysis by a
colleague of Thewissen's, Maureen O' Leary of the State University of New
York, Stony Brook, showed that its teeth are not as highly evolved as
those of mesonychians, MAKING IT UNLIKELY THAT WHALES ARE
DESCENDANTS OF THAT GROUP. But on the question of whether the
cetaceans are an actual subgroup of the Artiodactyla, as the molecular
biologists think, this and other fossil whales don't give a clear answer.
Thewissen says that five morphological features of early whales, including
features of the skull, upper teeth, and feet, are "not inconsistent" with the
hippo hypothesis. In particular, the new pakicetid skulls have holes over the
eye sockets, known as supraorbital foramina. These features are not known
in modern whales but are common to all artiodactyls.
But the last molar on the lower jaw, which has three sections in
aritodactyls, has just two in whales. And in artiodactyls, the astragalus, one
of the anklebones, has a rounded head and other characteristics that make
the ankle much more flexible than it is in any other mammal. Thewissen
recently discovered an anklebone from an early whale ancestor that still had
legs. It lacks the rounded head, although in other respects it is similar to
artiodactyl astragalus.
Still, Thewissen thinks the morphological evidence, although mixed, opens
the door to some kind of relationship between the whales and the
ungulates. He adds that there is now "CONSIDERABLE DOUBT" THAT
CETACEANS ARE CLOSELY RELATED TO MESONYCHIANS. That
conclusion got thumbs up from paleontologists at the meeting.
(Dennis Normile, "New Views of the Origins of Mammals," Science,
August 7, 1998, p775. My emphasis).
So much for evolution's alleged power of prediction! It's `best case'
prediction cited by Glenn to prove the superiority of evolution over PC
turns out to be wrong!
British geologist and evolutionist Derek Ager spoke more truly that even
he realised when he said:
"IT MUST BE SIGNIFICANT that nearly all the evolutionary stories I
learned as a student, from Trueman's Ostrea/Gryphea to Carruther's
Zaphrentis delanouei, have now been "debunked." Similarly, my own
experience of more than twenty years looking for evolutionary lineages
among the Mesozoic Brachiopoda has proved them equally elusive." (Ager
D.V., "The Nature of the Fossil Record," Proceedings of the Geologica.
Association, Vol. 87, 1976, p132, in Gish D.T., "Evolution: the Challenge
of the Fossil Record," 1986, p247. My emphasis).
It must be significant indeed!
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net
3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ senojes@hotmail.com
Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 8 9448 7439
Perth, West Australia v "Test everything." (1Thess 5:21)
--------------------------------------------------------------------